What's not healthy about being told they have another Granny who loves them but lives in the sky (or where ever)?

I think "obsessively living in the past" because he talks to his children about Granny Diana is a bit of an exaggeration?

If you fully read my post you would have seen that I took issue with the word "constantly". Which is not the scenario you're describing at all. Any activity done constantly (with the exception of breathing) is usually obsessive and unhealthy. For example see the difference between - John Doe drinks alcohol regularly vs. John Doe drinks alcohol constantly.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

If Phillip did suggest or even encourage the boys to do it I am quite sure there's no way he would of done it if he thought it would hurt them. If someone wants to say Phillip (being not known for his sensitivity) urged them to do it then okay, but he wouldn't of done it knowing it would cause hurt.

My guess is the idea was floated by the grey suits or Blair etc due to the massive outcry at the perceived lack of reaction of the BRF to her death.

LaRae

I don't think Philip meant any harm. Remember the famous pictures of 16-year-old Philip walking in the funeral procession for his sister Cecilie, his brother-in-law, and his young nephews. Like Diana, they also had tragic and unexpected early deaths. Philip likely gave his grandsons advice from his own experience with public grief.

This whole thing is just making me more tired of hearing about Diana; I had hoped the documentary wouldn't be negative and it wasn't but the same people are using it to spin the Saint Diana bs that I had wished had finally ceased.

Duchessrachel, This is for better or for worse, a multi media age, something the royals didn't have to contend with when they were able to withdraw into their palaces and estates and, by and large, servants, the Press and officials were both discreet and reverential. It's much easier to maintain mystery in that sort of an atmosphere.

It's a fine balancing act to both maintain distance and respect but also give the public the idea that their RF is approachable and human. Sometimes it falls over one side of the tightrope a bit too much.

However, I can't see how, in an age of instant comment and discussion on Twitter and the demand for Royal stories of all kinds, how that particular genie of a pre 1960s royal family is going to be pushed back into the bottle!

Oh, the virtue of 20/20 hindsight. Charles S says he was "Lied to" about the boys. Pass the salt, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

IAnji Hunter, Tony Blair’s head of government relations and his former ‘gatekeeper’ at No 10, has spoken publicly for the first time about the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death.

Laying bare the tensions that arose between the different factions in the run-up to Diana’s funeral, she remembers her first conversation with the PM following the news of the Princess’s fatal car crash in Paris in 1997.

‘I was on the phone to Tony and he got it straight away. The phrase was, “My God, these are enormous doings.” He told me: “We’ve got to be absolutely wise and sensible and focused”.’ (Marg: Thus "The Peoples Princess"?)

Hunter recalls her role on the Palace committee set up to organise the funeral. It wasn’t long before problems arose. ‘The most tension in the room always came from Charles Spencer’s people,’ says Anji.

The programme (7 Days that shook the Windsors) will claim Earl Spencer wanted to walk alone behind Diana’s coffin, but royal advisers were not happy.

Prince Charles was adamant that he also wanted to walk behind it. But the rest of the funeral team felt William and Harry, then 15 and 12, should be there, too. However, William was refusing to join the procession, saying he wanted to grieve privately.

Hoping to persuade William to change his mind, five days before the funeral on September 6, the team set up a telephone conference call with Balmoral via a big loudspeaker box on their conference table.

‘I can remember — it sends a tingle up my back, actually,’ says Hunter. ‘We were all talking about how William and Harry should be involved and suddenly from this box came Prince Philip’s voice. 'We hadn’t heard from him before, but he was really anguished.

'It’s about the boys,” he cried, “They’ve lost their mother.”
'I thought, “My God, there’s a bit of suffering going on up there.” ’

When Hunter’s husband Adam Boulton wrote about the same episode in his 2008 memoir, he recalled that Prince Philip actually used a profanity, so exasperated was he by Downing Street’s attempt to dictate the roles William and Harry should play at the funeral.

Charles S wanted to do his own piece of theatre and be the sole person walking behind the gun carriage. However, Prince Charles wanted to walk for himself and his family. Downing street wanted what it always wanted . . . it's own way.

__________________MARG"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes

Duchessrachel, This is for better or for worse, a multi media age, something the royals didn't have to contend with when they were able to withdraw into their palaces and estates and, by and large, servants, the Press and officials were both discreet and reverential. It's much easier to maintain mystery in that sort of an atmosphere.

It's a fine balancing act to both maintain distance and respect but also give the public the idea that their RF is approachable and human. Sometimes it falls over one side of the tightrope a bit too much.

However, I can't see how, in an age of instant comment and discussion on Twitter and the demand for Royal stories of all kinds, how that particular genie of a pre 1960s royal family is going to be pushed back into the bottle.

I don't think the pre 1960's royal family will ever be back. I do think in this day and age they should be seen as more approachable. I think I was just born about 70 years too late

20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

This whole thing is just making me more tired of hearing about Diana; I had hoped the documentary wouldn't be negative and it wasn't but the same people are using it to spin the Saint Diana bs that I had wished had finally ceased.

well I think that it is hard to avoid stuff about Diana at times.. but I do like her so I'm happy to read threads on her..and I like to have a discussion on her. However, there are people with a violent dislike of her, who will never hear any praise of her without getting annoyed and there are people who are so passionately in her favour that they cant' hear any criticism of her. So it can be wearing to be a moderate Diana fan.
And I thin that this documentary, which I haven't seen but have read some of the stuff in the paper (directly taken from it).. is liable to provoke a good deal fo controversy. I DO believe ti would ahave been possible to avoid the more painful bits that are bound to lead to angry debate, if the boys and their advisers had edited a bit more...

I remember reading something along these lines too. It was a credible thing that should Charles have just walked behind the casket by himself (with Charles Spencer), it may have looked like he was a sitting duck for not only boos and hisses and signs of disapproval but perhaps also an assassination attempt.
Walking with his sons and his father gave the impression that it was "familY" walking behind Diana's casket.

It is IMO Normal practice, for the males relatives of a royal to walk behind the coffin, and so it was expected in a royal funeral that it would be the boys, with Charles S at least.. THat would have been the normal plan which they took from the QM's funeral plans which they had adapted.
But as they were very young, the RF probably DID debate if it was a good idea and probably Philip then got involved and said that he felt It would be the right thing for W and H to do, and that he would go with them as well, to make it easier...

I consider myself a moderate Diana fan but the excuses of her behavior and people using this documentary to tear down the BRF is what irritates me. Denville you stated you feel the program should have been edited better but IMO it was edited fine; in all honesty it was a rather boring program with hardly anything new discussed. I actually found it a little disappointing that it didn't focus more on Diana as a mother and spent more time on her charity work which I personally don't care about.

well I think that it is hard to avoid stuff about Diana at times.. but I do like her so I'm happy to read threads on her..and I like to have a discussion on her. However, there are people with a violent dislike of her, who will never hear any praise of her without getting annoyed and there are people who are so passionately in her favour that they cant' hear any criticism of her. So it can be wearing to be a moderate Diana fan.

And I thin that this documentary, which I haven't seen but have read some of the stuff in the paper (directly taken from it).. is liable to provoke a good deal fo controversy. I DO believe ti would ahave been possible to avoid the more painful bits that are bound to lead to angry debate, if the boys and their advisers had edited a bit more...

1. I agree with your first comments. I liked Diana a lot when she was a young wife and mother. I was not happy with some of her actions the last year or so of her life and was seriously disappointed in her when her multiple affairs and some other things became common knowledge. I've made my peace with it and try not to be too fawning or critical nowadays.

2. Can you give an example of something you've read about that is in the documentary you think will provoke controversy? What is an example of a painful bit you think will lead to angry debate? I would like to understand where you are coming from on this because I don't see it the same way.

Perhaps not, but she does have to sign bills into law, laws that she might not agree with. She also has to entertain official guests that she might not want to.

yes but that is not the same thing. this was a family matter and she could certainly intervene to refuse to permit her grandsons to be pressured into something emotional like this. Her role as a constitutional monarch is a different matter

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

1. I2. Can you give an example of something you've read about that is in the documentary you think will provoke controversy? What is an example of a painful bit you think will lead to angry debate? I would like to understand where you are coming from on this because I don't see it the same way.

well as far as I can see they have brought up the whole business of walking behind the coffin as we can see from this debate here. And IMO it has led to unpleasant debate about Diana, her life, the RF the Spencers etc.
And even tings which are essentially innocuious can sound "odd" to those outside the family, esp for those who WANT to abuse Di or whoever it is.. WIll said something like he could imagine Diana coming to see his kids at Bath time, and "creating a big fuss" (Sorry I can't recall the exact wrods but I read something like this last week).
Clearly he meant it affectionatley, but I could well believe that soemoen who was prejudiced against Diana, saying "Oh look her own son says she would have created a big fuss with her grand children."
Just as people have said that he is obsessive because he said that he was "constantly talking about her to his children."

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I consider myself a moderate Diana fan but the excuses of her behavior and people using this documentary to tear down the BRF is what irritates me. Denville you stated you feel the program should have been edited better but IMO it was edited fine; in all honesty it was a rather boring program with hardly anything new discussed. I actually found it a little disappointing that it didn't focus more on Diana as a mother and spent more time on her charity work which I personally don't care about.

Why don't you care about her charity work? that was one of the biggest things in her life.. other than being a mother. I think that it is high time that she was given more creidit for it rather than people always going on about the sadness and problems of her private life.

I personally didn't find anything new regarding the charity talk that I hadn't already heard about a dozen times. I guess this program involving her kids I thought it would be more enlightening but that's just how I feel.

The overall article is about Diana, Dodi and other lovers but it is part of a series:

Quote:

Starting today, on what would have been Charles and Diana’s 36th wedding anniversary, and over the next four weeks in this groundbreaking Weekend magazine series marking the 20th anniversary of her death, we’ll be shedding fresh light on the ever-fascinating story of Diana, drawing on interviews with her relatives, confidantes, friends and other close figures, many of whom have never spoken publicly before.
We shall reveal:

Charles’s astonishing reaction when Diana wore sexy lingerie for him.

The explosive full story of what really happened the night Diana confronted Camilla.

How William threatened to report his mother to Childline when Diana slapped him.

Charles’s birthday gift to Camilla that Diana described as ‘like a dagger to my heart’.

The fact-finding mission on which William and Harry have embarked to learn all they can about their mother.

It is clear that dear old Sir Walter Bagehot's wise councel that a monarchy is best kept in the shadow of the Crown has been left. E-ve-ry-thing lies on the street. A monarchy needs some distance, some mysteriousness, some sacrality even. All this, the documentaries, the books, the articles is just turning the British monarchy into Big Brother 2.0

It is clear that dear old Sir Walter Bagehot's wise councel that a monarchy is best kept in the shadow of the Crown has been left. E-ve-ry-thing lies on the street. A monarchy needs some distance, some mysteriousness, some sacrality even. All this, the documentaries, the books, the articles is just turning the British monarchy into Big Brother 2.0

:(

Weren't the love affairs of Henry VIII, or Charles II, or George III's sons, or Edward VII also public knowledge back in their days though ? What has changed IMHO is, first and foremost, the attitude towards the monarchy, which doesn't get the deferential treatment it used to get in the past, and, second, the emergence of mass media communication, enhanced in the last 10 years or so by social media.

If you fully read my post you would have seen that I took issue with the word "constantly". Which is not the scenario you're describing at all. Any activity done constantly (with the exception of breathing) is usually obsessive and unhealthy. For example see the difference between - John Doe drinks alcohol regularly vs. John Doe drinks alcohol constantly.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had.

No confusion, my thoughts still stand.

I doubt William is going around "constantly" ranting on about Diana. He also followed up with the comment that he regularly talks about Diana to his children. It was an interview, a rather difficult one. He was asked a question and answered it as best he could.

Weren't the love affairs of Henry VIII, or Charles II, or George III's sons, or Edward VII also public knowledge back in their days though ? What has changed IMHO is, first and foremost, the attitude towards the monarchy, which doesn't get the deferential treatment it used to get in the past, and, second, the emergence of mass media communication, enhanced in the last 10 years or so by social media.

It is true that in Ye Olde Days the royals went off-road as well, but these days with 24\24 news there is really a need to take a step back and keep some distance. The new French President wants to end the hyperactivity of the ADHD-president Sarkozy and the so-called "normality" (read: banality) of Monsieur Normal (president Hollande on a scooter to his maîtresse). The young man has understood it. He knows that the trappings of state and a certain behaviour can be used as an instrument indeed. Seeing "Wills" and "Harry" discussing "Mum" in public with Elton John and other "friends of Diana".... No... And what now? Will we hear tapes of Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales declaring her love Lover Number Four, or was it Number Seven?